In all other cases wet chemistry Table 10 presents a comparison of all vegetation samples that showed provided a more sensitive measure positive of 28] a concentration than did gamma tam via gamma spectrometry. This limited data set of five samples spectrometry. exhibits a mean MCL:LLL ratio of increases in sensitivity were in the 0.95 + 22%, with no evidence for range of 2.1- to 637-fold. significant bias. samples exhibited increases in the Wet-chemistry results are the simple averages of the For vegetation samples, Animal range of 1.2- to 7,4-fold. individual determinations by carrier and carrier-free dissolution procedures. WET-CHEMISTRY ANALYSES OF 241 VS As indicated earlier in the 239,240 section on quality control, wetchemistry determinations of 24 sn Pu Results for 28 an and 239,240), in vegetation may be systematically were compared in those samples selected low. for wet chemistry. Concentration 241 239 In addition, the large uncer- tainties in the individual gamma ratios of measurements provide for a very 23942405, were calculated. broad range of possible ratios. Thus, Am to Pu and to The purposes of these computations were there is no reason to conclude that to examine any differences between there is any significant difference sample types between wet chemistry and gamma 1 Am in . vegetation. , spectrometry of and sampling location (Bikini vs (soil vs vegetation) Eneu), and to determine mean ratios - Table 10, Master log number 01-0639-10 » Comparison of a-PHA and gamma-spectrometric analyses for vegetation (MCL vs LLL) .? a-PHA (MCL) dpm/g Gamma spectrometry (LLL), dpm/g 41am in MCL:LLL 01-0641-10 0.44410 0.75419 0.34430% 1.3 432% 0.91455 0.82258 01-0803-10 4.9 +17 6.1 +20 0.80426 01-0829-10 0.43411 0.51456 0.84157 01~-0850-10 1.674 5.2 1.6 +30 1.0 +30 Average a All results are reported to a reference time of 1 January 1975 -~19- | 0.951224 (001.0002, 75).